windows vista performance scores?

Nitromaster

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 7, 2007
334
0
Ireland.
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N70-3 Ireland-Opera: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Symbian OS; Nokia N70/2.0539.1.2; 6366) Opera 8.01 [en])

There should be a page for the above,its a great way of finding out if a game will run on your system.
Its not like theres a million different components that could be in a mac system.


I personally am buying a mac book next revision and would like to compare it to the pc in my house..
Id create it but am useless with wiki layout.



Also whats with not being able to post replies to topics?
(when using the wap site)I am able to create topics and edit my existing posts but can not post replies/posts.
I get the following error:
the website forum.macrumors.com is not accepting the gateways connection,this may be a tempoary error so try again later.
This may be a prob with the site or with my phone network.
It last worked on friday. My phone network is Hutchinson 3-Ireland.
 

ReanimationLP

macrumors 68030
Jan 8, 2005
2,771
28
On the moon.
The Vista Performance scores have to be the most useless thing on the planet. Seriously, they're so inaccurate and based on the absolute slowest item in your computer.

For example. Mine has a 4.3, even though it has a Pentium4 3.25 GHz processor with hyper-threading, which still performs nice and smoothly in even the newest games. Games are more GPU based than CPU based.

On that note, boy, is gaming on the GMA950 crap. :D
 

im_to_hyper

macrumors 65816
Aug 25, 2004
1,181
240
Pasadena, California, USA
Edit: Haha yeah, this is in the mac guides thread. were not actually discussing them here. whoops.

Well, I get a 1.0 on the following:

Celeron 1.3GHz
512MB RAM
20GB HD
GeForce FX 5200 128MB
DVD+-RW

I am a Mac guy first and foremost -- I just wanted a machine to play with Vista on when my family calls me for tech support. I have XP running under Parallels, but I don't want to get Vista business for the liscense to run in there.

Not to mention, the other makes a good, er, copying machine.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,223
570
Cascadia
It also depends on how you split up the score.

The machine I was using during the Vista beta scored 5.9 for processor (Pentium Extreme Edition 965, basically a dual-core Pentium 4 overclocked from 3.73 to 4.0 GHz, with Hyperthreading, on a 1066 MHz bus,) 5.6 for RAM (2 GB, dual-channel PC2-667,) 4.5 for hard disk (a 40 GB Seagate from a couple years ago,) and 1.0 for both types of graphics (crappy completely unsupported SiS integrated.)

That meant that it got listed as a 1.0.

I think my MacBook Pro scores 4.something as it's 'base' score. I'd have to reboot it into Vista to check.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,223
570
Cascadia
How did you get that 7200 RPM HD in there? Do any resellers offer such a configuration?
Yeah, Apple did. This is the *ORIGINAL* Core Duo MacBook Pro, not the current Core 2 Duo version. When they updated to Core 2 Duo, they removed the 7200 RPM drive as an option on the 15" model, now you can only get it on the 17" model.

Mine also only has a single-layer DVD burner, and FireWire 400. I can't stand it when Apple insists that "large screen" equals high-end. Why can't I have all the high end features on my smaller screen? (I had a 12" PowerBook G4 before this, and had the same complaint... I want small, but full featured. I don't want a 17" screen on a notebook. Period.) I would rather have the 'features' define the main models, and have screen size as a drop down box you select. (Maybe you could only choose the larger screen if you start with a higher-end model, but you could get all the features in the smaller screen if you wanted.)
 

Swarmlord

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2006
535
0
Well Vista runs games about 10% slower than XP, if that's what you need to know.

No that they tell you that on their ads.
I think that serious gamers will be using XP for a few more years. It's the only reason I still have a Windoze machine.
 

iJawn108

macrumors 65816
Apr 15, 2006
1,197
0
I got the bluescreen in vista on my macbook :\ i prefer xp all the way.

It's just too damn heavy for an OS, especially for being completely rewritten.
 

mason.kramer

macrumors 6502
Apr 16, 2007
270
11
Watertown, MA
vista sucks for gaming right now. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Now keep in mind that it is entirely possible that game performance will increase to match or even surpass XP after a few patches, or in DX 10 games, or what have you. This is only as it is is right now. That said, considering that games are one of the few things that windows does better, I can't see any reason at all to get a vista for a mac user right now.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,223
570
Cascadia
Finally got my score: 4.1

Finally rebooted into Vista. (Yeah, really, it's been almost a month.)

Here's my score:
Processor: 4.7
RAM: 4.9
Graphics: 4.1
Gaming graphics: 4.5
Primary hard disk: 4.9

This is on an original 15.4" MacBook Pro, 2.0 GHz Core Duo (not Core 2,) 2 GB 667 MHz RAM (2x1GB sticks, so it's in dual-channel mode,) 256 MB Radeon Mobility X1600, (at the slower speeds the original model used,) and a 7200 RPM internal hard drive. I could 'over' clock my video chip to the standard speeds used in the Core 2 Duo models while in XP, but since installing Vista, it crashes if I try to increase speeds.
 

kingofkolt

macrumors 6502
May 2, 2007
375
0
Boston, MA
Finally rebooted into Vista. (Yeah, really, it's been almost a month.)

Here's my score:
Processor: 4.7
RAM: 4.9
Graphics: 4.1
Gaming graphics: 4.5
Primary hard disk: 4.9

This is on an original 15.4" MacBook Pro, 2.0 GHz Core Duo (not Core 2,) 2 GB 667 MHz RAM (2x1GB sticks, so it's in dual-channel mode,) 256 MB Radeon Mobility X1600, (at the slower speeds the original model used,) and a 7200 RPM internal hard drive. I could 'over' clock my video chip to the standard speeds used in the Core 2 Duo models while in XP, but since installing Vista, it crashes if I try to increase speeds.
How is gameplay on your MBP? I'll be getting one soon and doing a lot of gaming on the Windows half. Do games run pretty smoothly?
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,223
570
Cascadia
How is gameplay on your MBP? I'll be getting one soon and doing a lot of gaming on the Windows half. Do games run pretty smoothly?
The games I play are just fine. I don't do anything REALLY hardcore, though. Some Command & Conquer: Generals, Flight Simulator X, and a couple other older games. (Just broke out Starcraft again, to get prepped.)
 

MezicanGangxtah

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2007
114
0
Denver,CO
macbook pro fine gaming machine

Games on MBP are fine especcialy on the new santa rosa MBP with uprgraded GPU just about any new game out is very playable on this machine
 

kingofkolt

macrumors 6502
May 2, 2007
375
0
Boston, MA
lol oooooooooook. Just about any new game made 3 years ago maybe. You aren't playing much of anything new on a 8600M GT.
I play Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 on mine with graphics, dynamic lighting/shadows, and anti-aliasing set pretty high, and it runs beautifully. 2142 was just released last October.
 

overcast

macrumors 6502a
Jun 27, 2007
995
2
Rochester, NY
I play Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 on mine with graphics, dynamic lighting/shadows, and anti-aliasing set pretty high, and it runs beautifully. 2142 was just released last October.
BF2 came out over 2 years ago, 2142 is the same engine. It doesn't take much to run that game, especially since you don't tell us what resolution that is at.
 

kingofkolt

macrumors 6502
May 2, 2007
375
0
Boston, MA
BF2 came out over 2 years ago, 2142 is the same engine. It doesn't take much to run that game, especially since you don't tell us what resolution that is at.
I do think that 2142 has better graphics. It sure seems like it, at least. My resolution is 1024x768 (which looks quite good on a 15.4" monitor).
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,223
570
Cascadia
lol oooooooooook. Just about any new game made 3 years ago maybe. You aren't playing much of anything new on a 8600M GT.
Re-read mine. I play Flight Sim X at nearly full settings on a first-gen MacBook Pro. FS X can bring a Quad Core with SLIed 8800 Ultras to its knees if you crank the settings all the way up.
 

overcast

macrumors 6502a
Jun 27, 2007
995
2
Rochester, NY
Re-read mine. I play Flight Sim X at nearly full settings on a first-gen MacBook Pro. FS X can bring a Quad Core with SLIed 8800 Ultras to its knees if you crank the settings all the way up.
Wait a minute, you are not honestly trying to tell me that your magical Macbook Pro can run at nearly full settings, what normally requires Quadcore CPU with SLI 8800 Ultras are you? I'm not even going to bother with this one.
 

Anonymous Freak

macrumors 603
Dec 12, 2002
5,223
570
Cascadia
Wait a minute, you are not honestly trying to tell me that your magical Macbook Pro can run at nearly full settings, what normally requires Quadcore CPU with SLI 8800 Ultras are you? I'm not even going to bother with this one.
I only get 5 frames per second, but that's enough for general aviation flight sim. If I want to get smoother framerates, I turn it down to 'merely acceptable' settings. My comment was that the implication that the current cards are incapable of modern games is ridiculous. If you're willing to live with slightly reduced visual quality (not "omg, this game looks like Q-Bert", but not "I can see his pores", either,) or less-than-optimal framerates, you *CAN* play them.
 

Rolandd

macrumors newbie
Aug 28, 2007
1
0
The games I play are just fine. I don't do anything REALLY hardcore, though. Some Command & Conquer: Generals, Flight Simulator X, and a couple other older games. (Just broke out Starcraft again, to get prepped.)
This might be a really dumb question, but did you guys use bootcamp to install xp and play windows games on your mac.. or are you using somthing like parallels or vmware?
 

tom.

macrumors 6502
Nov 9, 2007
352
2
San Francisco, CA
I think that serious gamers will be using XP for a few more years. It's the only reason I still have a Windoze machine.
A few more years? I'm pretty sure most people will have more than enough hardware to run vista as easily as XP runs now. I would hope this world isn't stuck in XP land in 2011!
 

Slothapotamus

macrumors member
Mar 17, 2008
94
0
UK
I got the bluescreen in vista on my macbook :\ i prefer xp all the way.

It's just too damn heavy for an OS, especially for being completely rewritten.
Vista, or rather Longhorn, was originally a complete rewrite, but the developers were taking far too long to get it working properly. In the end they decided to use the Windows Server 2003 code. Hence a lot of the great ideas they had for Vista were scrapped (such as WinFS, the new file system). The only complete rewrites that are left in Vista are the annoying UAC system, the DRM and the Aero interface. The kernel is a modified Windows Server 2003.

Microsoft long ago forgot how to design good software. This is why I switched to Mac. Microsoft have made one bad design decision after another; eg, there's no way they can get rid of the Windows Registry without making all current Windows software and games obsolete. And now they're planning on moving to modular software in the upcoming Windows 7. Basically you'll have to pay for extra bits of the operating system. This will, in my view, only force even more people into finding an alternative such as Mac OS or even Linux.
 

NATO

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2005
1,691
28
Northern Ireland
I installed Vista x64 Business this evening on my Mac Pro, ran the Windows Experience thing, maxed out at 5.9 in all categories. System spec is in my signature. I haven't tried it on the MBP just yet though.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.